I have been spending a couple of days now to get to know the Fluent NHibernate automapping working model. It is quite nice, but I keep detecting new details missing from my schemas. Now I want to add extra properties to my classes, but not have them mapped to the database. A typical case is when I need extra properties with internal logic.
So I read the examples and scanned StackOverflow and found out that this was not another convention to be added, but rather a matter of inheriting the DefaultAutomappingConfiguration and override the ShouldMap method.
Fine, no problem, one minute later I had something like this:
public class CustomAutomappingConfiguration : DefaultAutomappingConfiguration
{
public override bool ShouldMap(Member member)
{
var explicitSkip = member.PropertyType.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(SkipMap), false).Length > 0;
if ((member.IsProperty && !member.CanWrite) || explicitSkip)
{
return false;
}
return base.ShouldMap(member);
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Don't map this property to database.
/// </summary>
public class SkipMap : Attribute
{
}
public class DemoClass
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual MyBitwiseEnum Status { get; set; }
public virtual bool IsValid
{
get
{
return (int)Status > 3;
}
}
[SkipMap]
public virtual bool IsBad
{
get
{
return MyBitwiseEnum.HasFlag(MyBitwiseEnum.Bad);
}
set
{
MyEnum = value ? MyBitwiseEnum | MyBitwiseEnum.Bad : MyBitwiseEnum ^ MyBitwiseEnum.Bad;
}
}
}
I know that my demo class is kind of stupid, but it will illustrate my point.
The idea is that I want to manually decide what properties to map to database.
The readonly property works fine because the ShouldMap method will look for property.CanWrite. But the custom attribute that definitely is set will not be detected. Why is that!?
In the convention methods I have used the same approach frequently and there it works fine. Why is the property not able to detect defined attributes here, when it obviously can in the convention setting. Is there a workaround?
have you added your new automapconvention to Automap?
AutoMap.AssemblyOf<>(new CustomAutomappingConfiguration())
Update: you are getting the skip attribute from Boolean class instead of the property
member.PropertyType.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(SkipMap), false)
should be
member.MemberInfo.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(SkipMap), false)
Just to be sure the custom attribute is applicable to properties, try adding [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)] to your SkipMap class.
Another possibility is an attribute name clash with another attribute that applies to different targets. Try renaming the class to something like MyVerySpecialSkipMap and retest to verify you don't have an attribute clash. At the very least, write some simple reflection code to test for the SkipMap attribute outside the context of your application to ensure it can be found.
Related
I have spent the last day trying to work out which pattern best fits my specific scenario and I have been tossing up between the State Pattern & Strategy pattern. When I read examples on the Internet it makes perfect sense... but it's another skill trying to actually apply it to your own problem. I will describe my scenario and the problem I am facing and hopefully someone can point me in the right direction.
Problem: I have a base object that has different synchronization states: i.e. Latest, Old, Never Published, Unpublished etc. Now depending on what state the object is in the behaviour is different, for example you cannot get the latest version for a base object that has never been published. At this point it seems the State design pattern is best suited... so I have implemented it and now each state has methods such as CanGetLatestVersion, GetLatestVersion, CanPublish, Publish etc.
It all seems good at this point. But lets say you have 10 different child objects that derive from the base class... my solution is broken because when the "publish" method is executed for each state it needs properties in the child object to actually carry out the operation but each state only has a reference to the base object. I have just spent some time creating a sample project illustrating my problem in C#.
public class BaseDocument
{
private IDocumentState _documentState;
public BaseDocument(IDocumentState documentState)
{
_documentState = documentState;
}
public bool CanGetLatestVersion()
{
return _documentState.CanGetLatestVersion(this);
}
public void GetLatestVersion()
{
if(CanGetLatestVersion())
_documentState.CanGetLatestVersion(this);
}
public bool CanPublish()
{
return _documentState.CanPublish(this);
}
public void Publish()
{
if (CanPublish())
_documentState.Publish(this);
}
internal void Change(IDocumentState documentState)
{
_documentState = documentState;
}
}
public class DocumentSubtype1 : BaseDocument
{
public string NeedThisData { get; set; }
}
public class DocumentSubtype2 : BaseDocument
{
public string NeedThisData1 { get; set; }
public string NeedThisData2 { get; set; }
}
public interface IDocumentState
{
bool CanGetLatestVersion(BaseDocument baseDocument);
void GetLatestVersion(BaseDocument baseDocument);
bool CanPublish(BaseDocument baseDocument);
bool Publish(BaseDocument baseDocument);
SynchronizationStatus Status { get; set; }
}
public class LatestState : IDocumentState
{
public bool CanGetLatestVersion(BaseDocument baseDocument)
{
return false;
}
public void GetLatestVersion(BaseDocument baseDocument)
{
throw new Exception();
}
public bool CanPublish(BaseDocument baseDocument)
{
return true;
}
public bool Publish(BaseDocument baseDocument)
{
//ISSUE HERE... I need to access the properties in the the DocumentSubtype1 or DocumentSubType2 class.
}
public SynchronizationStatus Status
{
get
{
return SynchronizationStatus.LatestState;
}
}
}
public enum SynchronizationStatus
{
NeverPublishedState,
LatestState,
OldState,
UnpublishedChangesState,
NoSynchronizationState
}
I then thought about implementing the state for each child object... which would work but I would need to create 50 classes i.e. (10 children x 5 different states) and that just seems absolute crazy... hence why I am here !
Any help would be greatly appreciated. If it is confusing please let me know so I can clarify!
Cheers
Let's rethink this, entirely.
1) You have a local 'Handle', to some data which you don't really own. (Some of it is stored, or published, elsewhere).
2) Maybe the Handle, is what we called the 'State' before -- a simple common API, without the implementation details.
3) Rather than 'CanPublish', 'GetLatestVersion' delegating from the BaseDocument to State -- it sounds like the Handle should delegate, to the specific DocumentStorage implementation.
4) When representing external States or Storage Locations, use of a separate object is ideal for encapsulating the New/Existent/Deletion state & identifier, in that storage location.
5) I'm not sure if 'Versions' is part of 'Published Location'; or if they're two independent storage locations. Our handle needs a 'Storage State' representation for each independent location, which it will store to/from.
For example:
Handle
- has 1 LocalCopy with states (LOADED, NOT_LOADED)
- has 1 PublicationLocation with Remote URL and states (NEW, EXIST, UPDATE, DELETE)
Handle.getVersions() then delegates to PublicationLocation.
Handle.getCurrent() loads a LocalCopy (cached), from PublicationLocation.
Handle.setCurrent() sets a LocalCopy and sets Publication state to UPDATE.
(or executes the update immediately, whichever.)
Remote Storage Locations/ Transports can be subtyped for different methods of accessing, or LocalCopy/ Document can be subtyped for different types of content.
THIS, I AM PRETTY SURE, IS THE MORE CORRECT SOLUTION.
[Previously] Keep 'State' somewhat separate from your 'Document' object (let's call it Document, since we need to call it something -- and you didn't specify.)
Build your heirarchy from BaseDocument down, have a BaseDocument.State member, and create the State objects with a reference to their Document instance -- so they have access to & can work with the details.
Essentially:
BaseDocument <--friend--> State
Document subtypes inherit from BaseDocument.
protected methods & members in Document heirarchy, enable State to do whatever it needs to.
Hope this helps.
Many design patterns can be used to this kind of architecture problem. It is unfortunate that you do not give the example of how you do the publish. However, I will state some of the good designs:
Put the additional parameters to the base document and make it
nullable. If not used in a document, then it is null. Otherwise, it
has value. You won't need inheritance here.
Do not put the Publish method to the DocumentState, put in the
BaseDocument instead. Logically, the Publish method must be part
of BaseDocument instead of the DocumentState.
Let other service class to handle the Publishing (publisher
service). You can achieve it by using abstract factory pattern. This
way, you need to create 1:1 document : publisher object. It may be
much, but you has a freedom to modify each document's publisher.
public interface IPublisher<T> where T : BaseDocument
{
bool Publish(T document);
}
public interface IPublisherFactory
{
bool Publish(BaseDocument document);
}
public class PublisherFactory : IPublisherFactory
{
public PublisherFactory(
IPublisher<BaseDocument> basePublisher
, IPublisher<SubDocument1> sub1Publisher)
{
this.sub1Publisher = sub1Publisher;
this.basePublisher = basePublisher;
}
IPublisher<BaseDocument> basePublisher;
IPublisher<SubDocument1> sub1Publisher;
public bool Publish(BaseDocument document)
{
if(document is SubDocument1)
{
return sub1Publisher.Publish((SubDocument1)document);
}
else if (document is BaseDocument)
{
return basePublisher.Publish(document);
}
return false;
}
}
public class LatestState : IDocumentState
{
public LatestState(IPublisherFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
IPublisherFactory factory;
public bool Publish(BaseDocument baseDocument)
{
factory.Publish(baseDocument);
}
}
Use Composition over inheritance. You design each interface to each state, then compose it in the document. In summary, you can has 5 CanGetLatestVersion and other composition class, but 10 publisher composition class.
More advancedly and based on the repository you use, maybe you can use Visitor pattern. This way, you can has a freedom to modify each publishing methods. It is similiar to my point 3, except it being declared in one class. For example:
public class BaseDocument
{
}
public class SubDocument1 : BaseDocument
{
}
public class DocumentPublisher
{
public void Publish(BaseDocument document)
{
}
public void Publish(SubDocument1 document)
{
// do the prerequisite
Publish((BaseDocument)document);
// do the postrequisite
}
}
There may be other designs available but it is dependent to how you access your repository.
I've recently upgraded to build 2230, and things are working just fine. However, I just updated the RavenDB .NET client assemblies and now I'm having this issue.
This code has been in place for a year or so. This is how I'm saving:
public void Save(EntityBase objectToSave)
{
using (IDocumentSession session = GetOptimisticSession())
{
session.Store(objectToSave, objectToSave.Etag);
session.SaveChanges();
}
}
And this is the object I'm saving.
public class InstallationEnvironment : EntityBase
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int LogicalOrder { get; set; }
}
Now the base class:
public class EntityBase : NotifyPropertyChangedBase
{
public string Id { get; set; } // Required field for all objects with RavenDB.
}
The problem is that the base class property (Id) is getting persisted in RavenDB, but the derived properties (Name, LogicalOrder) are not.
Why would only the base class properties be saved in RavenDB?
Got it. Through trial and error, I noticed that one derived property was being saved (on a different class than the one shown in my question), and that property was decorated with the [DataMember] attribute. I just recently added it because I'm creating a WCF service for my app, and I started by using that attribute on one property for testing.
As Ayende states here, you have to use [DataMember] on all properties, or on none of them. If [DataMember] exists on a property, all others will be ignored.
Note: This was a problem for me even though [DataMember] was specified on a property in a different class. It seems like if I use [DataMember] anywhere, I have to use it for everything.
I am trying to map my collections with FNHib automapping. The problems that I want to solve are:
1) I want all my collections in the project to be mapped via private field. How can I say that globally?
2) Is there any way to automap bidirectional relationship without explicitly overriding each of my entities.
class OrganizationEntity example:
private ISet<> _collectionWarehouse;
public virtual IEnumerable<WarehouseEntity> CollectionWarehouse
{
get{return _collectionWarehouse; }
set{_collectionWarehouse = new HashedSet<WarehouseEntity>((ICollection<WarehouseEntity>)value)}
}
Class WarehouseEntity example:
public virtual OrganizationEntity Organization{get;set;}
You can map your collections to a private field 'globally' with the following convention:
// assumes camel case underscore field (i.e., _mySet)
public class CollectionAccessConvention : ICollectionConvention
{
public void Apply(ICollectionInstance instance) {
instance.Access.CamelCaseField(CamelCasePrefix.Underscore);
}
}
Whenever you want to set a 'global' automap preference in FNH, think conventions. The you use the IAutoOverride on a given class map if you need to.
As far has the set (a HashSet is usually what I really want also) part, the last time I had to do some mapping, I did need to do an override, like:
public class ActivityBaseMap : IAutoMappingOverride<ActivityBase>
{
public void Override(AutoMapping<ActivityBase> m)
{
...
m.HasMany(x => x.Allocations).AsSet().Inverse();
}
}
I do agree that should translate into a convention though, and maybe you can do that these days. Please post if you figure it out.
HTH,
Berryl
CODE TO USE A HASHSET as an ICollection =================
public virtual ICollection<WarehouseEntity> Wharehouses
{
get { return _warehouses ?? (_warehouses = new HashSet<WarehouseEntity>()); }
set { _warehouses = value; }
}
private ICollection<WarehouseEntity> _warehouses;
I have the following idea:
Business object implemented as interface or abstract class with certain properties as read only to all layers except the DAL layer. I also want my business objects in another assembly than the DAL (for testing purposes), so marking the properties is not an option for me.
Examples could be one to one relationships or other properties.
I have almost solved the issue by doing the following
abstract class User
{
public virtual long UserId {get; protected set;}
public virtual string Password {get; protected set;}
...
}
In the DAL:
public class DbUser : User
{
internal virtual void SetPassword(string password) {...}
}
I then map this using fluent as
ClassMap<User> {...}
SubclassMap<DbUser> {...}
The problem I get is that fluent tries to create a table named DbUser.
If I skip the SubclassMap and creates a DbUser object and tries to save it I get an "No persister for this object" error.
Is it possible to solve?
You could probably override what is done with Fluent
public class DbUser: IAutoMappingOverride<DbUser>
{
public void Override(AutoMapping<DbUser> mapping)
{
//tell it to do nothing now, probably tell it not to map to table,
// not 100% on how you'd do this here.
}
}
Or you could have an attribute
public class DoNotAutoPersistAttribute : Attribute
{
}
And in AutoPersistenceModelGenerator read for attribute in Where clause to exclude it.
Check would be something like
private static bool CheckPeristance(Type t) {
var attributes = t.GetCustomAttributes(typeof (DoNotAutoPersistAttribute), true);
Check.Ensure(attributes.Length<=1, "The number of DoNotAutoPersistAttribute can only be less than or equal to 1");
if (attributes.Length == 0)
return false;
var persist = attributes[0] as DoNotAutoPersistAttribute;
return persist == null;
}
Then it kind of depends how you're adding entities but you're probably adding via assembly so this might do it for you:
mappings.AddEntityAssembly(typeof(User).Assembly).Where(GetAutoMappingFilter);
....
...
private static bool GetAutoMappingFilter(Type t)
{
return t.GetInterfaces().Any(x => CheckPeristance(x)); //you'd probably have a few filters here
}
I'm trying to save a mapped entity using NHibernate but my insert to the database fails because the underlying table has a column that does not allow nulls and IS NOT mapped in my domain object. The reason it isn't mapped is because the column in question supports a legacy application and has no relevance to my application - so I'd like to not pollute my entity with the legacy property.
I know I could use a private field inside my class - but this still feels nasty to me. I've read that I can use an NHibernate interceptor and override the OnSave() method to add in the new column right before my entity is saved. This is proving difficult since I can't work out how to add an instance of Nhibernate.type.IType to the types parameter of my interceptor's OnSave.
My Entity roughly looks like this:
public class Client
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual int ParentId { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual string Phone { get; set; }
public virtual string Email { get; set; }
public virtual string Url { get; set; }
}
And my interceptor
public class ClientInterceptor : EmptyInterceptor
{
public override bool OnSave(object entity, object id, object[] state, string[] propertyNames, NHibernate.Type.IType[] types)
{
if (entity is Client)
{
/*
manually add the COM_HOLD column to the Client entity
*/
List<string> pn_list = propertyNames.ToList();
pn_list.Add("COM_HOLD");
propertyNames = pn_list.ToArray();
List<Object> _state = state.ToList();
_state.Add(false);
state = _state.ToArray();
//somehow add an IType to types param ??
}
return base.OnSave(entity, id, state, propertyNames, types);
}
}
Does anyone have any ideas on how to do this properly?
I can't say for sure since I've never actually done this (like Stefan, I also prefer to just add a private property), but can you just add a NHibernate.Type.BooleanType to the types array?
List<IType> typeList = types.ToList();
typeList.Add(new BooleanType());
types = typesList.ToArray();
EDIT
Yes, it looks like you are right; the types have an internal constructor. I did some digging and found TypeFactory:
Applications should use static
methods and constants on
NHibernate.NHibernateUtil if the
default IType is good enough. For example, the TypeFactory should only
be used when the String needs to have a length of 300 instead of 255. At this point
NHibernate.String does not get you thecorrect IType. Instead use TypeFactory.GetString(300) and keep a
local variable that holds a reference to the IType.
So it looks like what you want is NHibernateUtil:
Provides access to the full range of
NHibernate built-in types. IType
instances may be used to bind values
to query parameters. Also a factory
for new Blobs and Clobs.
typeList.Add(NHibernateUtil.Boolean);
Personally I wouldn't do it so complicated. I would add the private property and assign it a default value - finished. You could also consider a default value in the database, then you don't need to do anything else.
private virtual bool COM_HOLD
{
get { return false; }
set { /* make NH happy */ }
}
Before writing a interceptor for that I would consider to write a database trigger. Because with the Interceptor you are "polluting" your data access layer. It could make it unstable and you could have strange problems.